Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gaddam Lingaiah vs The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa ... on 11 December, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2012 AP 24
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.38148 of 2012
11-12-2012
Gaddam Lingaiah
The District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District and others
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. D. Seshasayana Reddy
Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Revenue
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
?CITATIONS:
ORDER:
The overjealous attitude of the Revenue and Stamps and Registration officials has been time and again driving the citizens to take recourse to the remedy of judicial review. This case is a paradigm where the property, which was shown as a private property in the extract of Register of Holding, is treated as Government land and the request of the petitioner for its registration was rejected by the registering authority-respondent No.5, which was confirmed by the appellate authority-respondent No.4.
One Guduru Rachaiah is stated to be the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.4.84 cents in Sy.No.147/2 of Pedda Rangapuram Village, Pulivendla Mandal, Kadapa District. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the extract of Register of Holding for the period between 1914 and 1955 would amply corroborate this claim. That the said Rachaiah has sold the land to the petitioner through registered document No.568/72 dated 12.04.1972. When the petitioner intended to sell the property to the third parties in April, 2011, respondent No.5 refused to receive the document on the ground that the land belongs to the Government. The petitioner filed W.P.No.30994 of 2012 feeling aggrieved by the refusal of respondent No.5 to receive the document. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 05.10.2012 with the direction to respondent No.5 to receive and process the document without insisting on 'No Objection Certificate' from the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the petitioner has presented the document on 31.10.2012 before respondent No.5 for registration. Having received the said document, respondent No.5 has passed an order refusing to register the sale deed vide his endorsement dated 31.10.2012 on the sole ground that Sy.No.147/2 is classified as Assessed Waste (AW) and that the same is included in the list of Government lands furnished by Tahsildar, Pulivendula, vide his proceedings dated 05.02.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.4 and it was taken on file as Appeal No.5 of 2012. The said appeal was disposed of by respondent No.4, by order dated 27.11.2012, whereby he has confirmed the order of respondent No.5. Assailing both these orders, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
As noted above, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the revenue record clearly shows that the land is a private land. In support of his plea that it was a private land, the petitioner filed a copy of the Register of Holding, a perusal of which would show that the name of Guduru Rachaiah is shown as the owner of the property admeasuring Ac.4.84 cents in Sy.No.147/2. This extract shows that the same has been issued by the Office of the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the pattadar passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer as far back as 30.06.1994. It is not disputed that the petitioner has purchased the property under a registered sale deed on 12.04.1972. In the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence to show that the petitioner is the owner of the property, the only ground on which respondent No.5 declined to register the sale deed and respondent No.4 confirmed the refusal order of respondent No.5 is that in the list furnished by the then Tahsildar in the year 2007, the property was shown as AW belonging to the Government. Respondent Nos.4 and 5, being the independent functionaries exercising powers and discharging duties under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'the Act'), are bound to act independently by exercising their mind without being blindly guided by the instructions of the Tahsildar or the other revenue officials of the District. The mere fact that in the opinion of the Tahsildar, the property is the Assessed Waste belonging to the Government and he has accordingly included the property in his list sent to the registering authority would not make the land truly belonging to the Government. A list sent by the Tahsildar or the District Collector to the registering authority showing the properties as belonging to the Government does not have the same efficacy or binding force as a notification issued under sub- section (2) of Section 22-A of the Act. Notwithstanding the inclusion of the properties in the list of the revenue officials, the registering authority shall apply its mind to the material that may be placed by the private party as well as the revenue officials and arrive at its own conclusion.
Leave alone respondent No.5, even respondent No.4, who is the appellate authority, has simply guided himself by the said list despite the above discussed documentary evidence placed by the petitioner before him to show that the property is treated as a private property and not Government property and a registered transaction has taken place as far back as 12.04.1972. Instances galore where the persons, who are recognized as rightful owners not only by being allowed to purchase under registered documents decades ago but also by issuing the pattadar passbooks, are being deprived of their right to transfer the properties by way of sale, mortgage etc. While the efforts of the official functionaries for protecting the Government properties always deserve to be appreciated, in the guise of such protection, they cannot be permitted to harass the innocent citizens by driving them to the courts again and again by styling the private lands as Government lands without any shred of evidence in support thereof.
If respondents 1 to 3 really felt that the property in question is the Government land, it defies any logic and reason as to why they have been keeping quiet without recovering the property from the petitioner. Far from doing so, the rights of the petitioner were well recognized by them by issuing pattadar passbooks as far back as the year 1994. This Court is unable to comprehend as to by merely preventing registration, will the Government gain anything ? Except curtailing the right of a private party to enjoy the property as he likes, it results in nothing. Only at the time of registration, the revenue authorities appear to be preventing registration without doing anything further to safeguard and protect the so called Government properties and to recover the possession thereof. This attitude of the revenue officials being supported by the registering authorities is creating a situation where needless litigation is being promoted driving the citizens to resort to needless and frivolous litigation.
Time and again this Court has been holding that mere registration of the document will not create any title in the purchaser, unless such title is vested in the vendor himself. While preventing registrations on frivolous objections, Government is only denying itself of the revenue without doing anything else. As observed above, there are no instances where the possession of the properties, which are found to be in the Government list, is sought to be recovered by the revenue authorities. Not only that the litigants are vexed with this sort of litigation, but this Court feels that it is time that litigation of this nature is put an end to. Unless the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh intervenes and finds a proper solution to this vexed problem, the litigation of this nature may continue unabated.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any justification in respondent No.5 refusing to register the document presented by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement of respondent No.5 and the order of respondent No.4 confirming the said endorsement are set aside. The respondent shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.
The Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh is directed to personally examine the issue and issue appropriate instructions to the Principal Secretaries of the Revenue and Stamps and Registration to work out the modalities strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 22-A of the Act to ensure that the revenue officials, such as Tahsildars, do not include the private properties in the Government list, unless the revenue record unambiguously shows that the properties belong to the Government, and the registering authorities do not refuse to entertain the documents simply on the basis of the list sent by the Tahsildars and other revenue officials.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.48383 of 2012 filed for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.
_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 11.12.2012 Note:
1. Copy to the Chief Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad.
2. Copy to the Principal Secretary of Revenue
3. Copy to the Principal Secretary of Stamps & Registration